NFL Draft Central

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Final point: if you could have taken a future franchise quarterback at No. 4, and you decide to pass and go with the best OT, and Sam Bradford ends up being the next Philip Rivers...then who cares? A franchise-changing pickup for the team who did draft him for less money, but no one in the NFC East is sniffing around QBs, so it's no skin off our back.

We'd just keep plugging.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.

I'm glad that you weighted in on this subject, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Campbell isn't really an experiment any more. We pretty much know what we can expect if we don't change the status quo. The only thing we don't know about Jason Campbell is how good he would be if we change the talent around him.

For all the talk about systems and changes, Campbell hasn't missed his potential because of a lack of consistency. He's probably fallen short of greatness due to a lack of talent, possibly on his part, but probably on everyone elses.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Final point: if you could have taken a future franchise quarterback at No. 4, and you decide to pass and go with the best OT, and Sam Bradford ends up being the next Philip Rivers...then who cares? A franchise-changing pickup for the team who did draft him for less money, but no one in the NFC East is sniffing around QBs, so it's no skin off our back.

We'd just keep plugging.

I think a lot of this depends on what situation Bradford gets put in. For instance, there is no way in hell that Sanchez has the same success here in DC, that he found with the Jets. While a talented QB, I just don't think he would have been successful here with the Redskins with our terrible offensive line, poor running game, and our signature "bend-but-don't-break" defense.

I think a lot of this depends on what situation Bradford gets put in. For instance, there is no way in hell that Sanchez has the same success here in DC, that he found with the Jets. While a talented QB, I just don't think he would have been successful here with the Redskins with our terrible offensive line, poor running game, and our signature "bend-but-don't-break" defense.

I really hope that's a thing of the past. We broke too many times last year with the game on the line.

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.

I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting great. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.

__________________God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.

I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting great. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.

Now that was a great post

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

What makes you think Bradford can be elite without a shitload of talent around him? That is my point with going for these second tier guys who have played great ball without the great talent around them. It might take us at least 3 years to produce a winning product, and that is if Allen and co get it right, no draft busts, etc. IF Shanny likes Bradford and thinks he is a gamer who am I to say any differently, but if Bradford starts in 2011 he still is going to have to deal with a less than stellar crop of talent around him. Bradford's potentially bum shoulder, aside, he might suck when faced up against a superior opponent or one that is on par with the Skins. He never had to face that at Oklahoma, except maybe twice a year at the most.

I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting great. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.

Good points Schneed. I just happen to think Okung would be a huge improvement over any LT we have. I love Samuels but think his better days are behind him. I don't feel anywhere near as sure that Bradford or Clausen are a big improvement over JC. They may be, they might not be. If the people in charge think so, so be it. Like I said, I'm a big fan of Bradford. I don't think anyone disagrees that nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB. If we draft a QB with the #4 pick, I certainly hope he's elite. If not, we'll probably spend the next 3-5 years trying to make him one. I hope that's not the case. And even he would benefit from an elite o-line.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.

Sounds like you want a quick fix with a franchise QB. The funny thing is that isn't that what Snyder wanted to do all along and why he wanted to get Sanchez or Cutler in the offseason? Get that franchise QB at all cost that will miraculously carry this team on his shoulders.

The funny thing about all of this is that while no one (including myself) is complaining about picking up Orakpo, had we picked up Michael Oher last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion about picking up a tackle vs. a QB with the #4 pick. By now, Oher would have had a year under his belt, and probably would have started a lot of games, and we would be free to pick up Bradford or Clausen.

Sounds like you want a quick fix with a franchise QB. The funny thing is that isn't that what Snyder wanted to do all along and why he wanted to get Sanchez or Cutler in the offseason? Get that franchise QB at all cost that will miraculously carry this team on his shoulders.

The funny thing about all of this is that while no one (including myself) is complaining about picking up Orakpo, had we picked up Michael Oher last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion about picking up a tackle vs. a QB with the #4 pick. By now, Oher would have had a year under his belt, and probably would have started a lot of games, and we would be free to pick up Bradford or Clausen.

Actually I'm not calling for a quick fix, because my opinion is colored by a sound understanding of recent league history when it comes to QBs. Peyton Manning took several years to reach the AFC Championship and ultimately win a Super Bowl. Drew Brees was mediocre early in his SD days, then got better with experience, and eventually reached all-pro level. Matt Ryan was impressive his first two years but he hasn't yet made the leap to become an elite QB. Phillip Rivers and Eli Manning took a few years to really get up and running (Eli's not even elite, but he still took time to win the SB).

I understand that a QB will most likely take time to reach that level of dominant force. And I understand that it takes a strong team around him, too.

But the point remains, it's a lot easier to win a SB with a dominant QB and solid LT than it is to win one with a dominant LT and a solid QB. That's a much more important point than the fact that 1st round offensive lineman are more likely to pan out than 1st round QBs.

__________________God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.